Re: [secdir] Review of draft-gellens-lost-validation-05

[Shawn Emery <[e-mail]>]

Yes, it's not listed as a well-known abbreviation in the RFC-editor's
list.  Could you also send me an update of the draft stemming from the
Gen-ART comments?

Thanks,

Shawn.
--

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 5:38 PM Randall Gellens <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 4 Mar 2020, at 18:41, Shawn Emery wrote:
>
> > Reviewer: Shawn M. Emery
> > Review result: Ready
> >
> > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> > IESG.
> > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
> > area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
> > comments just like any other last call comments.
> >
> > This draft specifies an IANA registry for the Location-to-Service
> > Translation
> > (LoST) Protocol Validation Service Tag under U-NAPTR.
> >
> > The security considerations section does exist and refers to RFC 3958
> > and
> > 4848.
> > I agree that this change does not introduce any new security
> > considerations.
> >
> > General comments:
> >
> > None.
> >
> > Editorial comments:
> >
> > Abbreviations should be expanded in the title of the draft and when
> > first
> > used (in this case the Abstract).
> > s/...//
> >
> > Shawn.
> > --
>
> Thanks for your review, Shawn.  Just to clarify, your suggestion is that
> "S-NAPTR" be expanded in the Abstract, e.g., by adding "(Straightforward
> Name Authority PoinTeR)".
>
> --Randall
>